Abstract
Now more than ever, interest in measuring the research performance of colleges and universities is at an all-time high across the globe. There are several factors that have precipitated this growth of interest in assessing research productivity, particularly in the United States. First, colleges and universities are increasingly competing with each other for reputation and prestige, and enhancing research productivity is often viewed as a means to accomplish this goal. Based on expenditures for academic research, scientific production grew exponentially over the twentieth century (Geiger 2004) and current levels of research funding indicate the trend continues in the new century. As a result, the system of higher education in the United States has experienced considerable “mission drift” in recent years, as institutions that previously may have focused more on the teaching dimension of their mission have ratchetted up their research production and expectations of faculty. Some scholars including Geiger (2004) and Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) purport that universities today are highly reliant on federal and industry funding for research and development (R&D) funding, leading to “academic capitalism” and the possibility of research for financial gain more than for authentic discovery of knowledge. The benefits of funding and visibility that come from academic research are sought by many and factor into institution rankings as well. China’s “2020 Plan,” Korea’s plan to create more world-class universities (Shin 2009), and the zealous grab for higher institutional rankings continues with annual releases of publications from such groups as US News & World Report, The Academic Ranking of World Universities (from Shanghi Jiao Tong University), and Thomson Reuters.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Al, U., Sahiner, M., & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011–1022.
Astin, A. (1970). Methodology of research on college impact (I). Sociology of Education, 43(3), 223–254.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Baird, L. L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education, 25(3), 211–225.
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K. Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries. Retrieved January 27, 2010 at, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533854/pdf/1742-5581-3-7.pdf
Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine. Retrieved January 27, 2010 at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151.
Becker, W. (1975). The university professor as a utility maximizer and producer of learning, research, and income. The Journal of Human Resources, 14(1), 109–115.
Becker, W. (1979). Professorial behavior given a stochastic reward structure. The American Economic Review, 69(5), 1010–1017.
Becker, W. (1982). Behavior and productivity implications of institutional and project funding of research: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 595–598.
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation.
Capaldi, E., Lombardi, J., Abbey, C., & Craig, D. (2008). The top American research universities: 2008 annual report. Tempe, AZ: The Center for Measuring University Performance. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1971). New students and new places. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (2009). Carnegie classifications FAQs. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about/sub.asp?key=18&subkey=405#1.0.1
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958–977.
Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.
DeBellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow.
Diamond, A. (1984). An economic model of the life-cycle research productivity of scientists. Scientometrics, 6(3), 189–196.
Diamond, A. (1986). What is a citation worth? The Journal of Human Resources, 21(2), 200–215.
Diamond, N., & Graham, H. (2000). How should we rate research universities? Change, 32(4), 21–33.
Dolan, R., & Schmidt, R. (1994). Modeling institutional production of higher education. Economics of Education Review, 13(3), 197–213.
Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: Economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14(2), 119–144.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.
Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2008). Rethinking development: Circulation in the triple helix. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 653–666.
Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and applications in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Free Press.
Geiger, R. L. (2004). Research & relevant knowledge: American universities since WWII. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
Geiger, R., & Sa, C. (2008). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Gerrity, D., & McKenzie, R. (1978). The ranking of southern economics departments: New criterion and further evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 45(2), 608–614.
Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.
James, A. D. (2009). Reevaluating the role of defense and security R&D in the innovative system: Reform of the UK government defence research establishments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(5), 505–523.
Johnes, J., Taylor, J., & Francis, B. (1993). The research performance of UK universities: A statistical analysis of the results of the 1989 research selectivity exercise. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 156(2), 271–286.
Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71(2), 191–202.
Laband, D. (1985). An evaluation of 50 ‘ranked’ economics departments by quantity and quality of faculty publications and graduate student placement and research success. Southern Economic Journal, 52, 216–240.
Libaers, D. (2009). Reevaluating the role of defense and security R&D in the innovation system: industry relationships of DoD-funded academics and institutional changes in US university systems. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(5), 474–489.
Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 189–203.
Long, J., & McGinnis, R. (1982). On adjusting productivity measures for multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 4(5), 379–387.
Maher, B. (1996). The NRC’s report on research-doctorate programs: It’s uses and misuses. Change, 28(6), 54–59.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.
McCormick, A., & Zhao, C. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change, 37(5), 51–57.
Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.
Moed, H. (2006). Bibliometric rankings of world universities (CWTS Report 2006-01). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).
Moed, H., Burger, W., Frankfort, J., & Van Raan, A. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of education statistics 2008. Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Nederhof, A. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.
Porta, M., Fernandez, E., & Puigdomenech, E. (2006). Book citations: Influence of epidemiologic thought in the academic community. Revista de Saúde Pública, 40, 50–56.
Porter, S., & Toutkoushian, R. (2006). Institutional research productivity and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation. Economics of Education Review, 25(6), 605–617.
Roy, R., Roy, N., & Johnson, G. (1983). Approximating total citation counts from first author counts and from total papers. Scientometrics, 5(2), 117–124.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.
Seol, S., & Park, J. (2008). Knowledge sources of innovation studies in Korea: A citation analysis. Scientometrics, 75(1), 3–20.
Shin, J. (2009). Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669–688.
Shin, K., & Putnam, R. (1982). Age and academic – professional honors. Journal of Gerontology, 37(2), 220–229.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Stern, M. (1983). Characteristics of the literature and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College & Research Libraries, 44(4), 199–209.
Tan, D. (1986). The assessment of quality in higher education: A critical review of the literature and research. Research in Higher Education, 24(3), 223–265.
Tang, R. (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College & Research Libraries, 69(4), 356–369.
Toutkoushian, R. (1994). Using citations to measure sex discrimination in faculty salaries. The Review of Higher Education, 18(1), 61–82.
Toutkoushian, R., Porter, S., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. (2003). Using publication counts to measure an institution’s research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 121–148.
University System of Georgia Annual Financial Report FY 2007. Retrieved on October 18, 2009, from http://www.usg.edu/fiscal_affairs/reporting/annual_fin_rep/2007/afr2007_cons_pdf.pdf
Wardle, D. (1995). Journal citation impact factors and parochial citation practices. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 76, 102–104.
Webster, D., & Skinner, T. (1996). Rating PhD programs: What the NRC report says… and doesn’t say. Change, 28(3), 22–32, 34–44.
Yates, S., & Chapman, K. (2005). An examination of the use of monographs in the communication journal literature. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 26(11), 39–51.
Zainab, A., & Goi, S. (1997). Characteristics of citations used by humanities researchers. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 2(2), 19–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Toutkoushian, R.K., Webber, K. (2011). Measuring the Research Performance of Postsecondary Institutions. In: Shin, J., Toutkoushian, R., Teichler, U. (eds) University Rankings. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1115-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1116-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)